(February 8, 2018 at 5:33 pm)Khemikal Wrote: It's a useless argument, the two of you don't have to agree on what you're referring to when you recognize good. The question concerned whether or not a person chose to recognize it as such. It doesn;t even matter if either concept is vacuous. Do either of you find that you have to make a choice to recognize what you consider good? Could either of you choose otherwise?
Generally, the problem is when there are two opposing 'goods'. Or where a situation looks 'good' from one perspective and 'bad' from another. Such conundrums are pervasive.
Abortion, doctor assisted suicide, and a whole host of questions in medical and bioethics. And that doesn't even get into questions of politics.
There are *many* situations where people have differing opinions on what is 'good'. And yes, we often *do* choose which perspective to adopt so that something is 'good' when a differing perspective would make it 'bad'. Sometimes arguments do point out aspects we hadn't considered and can change minds about the 'goodness' of an action.
And even if neither of us 'chooses' what we consider to be 'good', there is still the issue that we will often disagree. How are such disputes resolved? Is there a standard for such a resolution?
One good argument for the *non-existence* of objective morality is that there are so many moral issues where thoughtful people disagree with no way to resolve the disagreement.
